General Studies 2025 GS Paper II 15 marks 250 words Compulsory Critically examine

Q13

Discuss the evolution of collegium system in India. Critically examine the advantages and disadvantages of the system of appointment of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India and that of the USA. (Answer in 250 words) 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

भारत में कॉलेजियम प्रणाली के विकास की विवेचना कीजिए। भारत और संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका के उच्चतम न्यायालय के न्यायाधीशों की नियुक्ति की प्रणाली के फायदे और नुकसान का आलोचनात्मक परीक्षण कीजिए। (उत्तर 250 शब्दों में दीजिए)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2025 General Studies questions

Directive word: Critically examine

This question asks you to critically examine. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.

See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

The directive 'critically examine' requires a balanced analysis with judgment. Structure: brief introduction tracing collegium evolution; body covering Indian collegium merits/demerits, then USA's political appointment system with its checks/balances; conclusion with comparative insight on judicial independence vs accountability.

Key points expected

Evolution: First Judges Case (1982), Second Judges Case (1993, 'consultation'='concurrence'), Third Judges Case (1998), 99th Constitutional Amendment and NJAC verdict (2015)
Indian collegium advantages: shields judiciary from executive overreach, maintains independence, prevents political packing
Indian collegium disadvantages: opacity, lack of accountability, nepotism concerns, no fixed criteria, delays in appointments
USA system: Presidential nomination with Senate confirmation, public hearings, political scrutiny; advantages in transparency and democratic legitimacy
USA disadvantages: politicization of judiciary, partisan battles (Merrick Garland 2016, Amy Coney Barrett 2020), ideological litmus tests
Comparative insight: India prioritizes independence over accountability; USA balances both but at cost of politicization; need for transparent mechanism without executive dominance

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	3	Clearly distinguishes 'discuss' (evolution) from 'critically examine' (balanced judgment on merits/demerits of both systems); treats both Indian and USA systems with evaluative rigor, not mere description	Addresses both parts but conflates directives; describes more than evaluates; superficial treatment of either Indian or USA system	Misses the comparative critical examination entirely; treats as purely descriptive; ignores USA component or reduces to passing mention
Content depth & accuracy	20%	3	Accurate chronology of three Judges Cases with correct years; precise NJAC 2015 verdict; accurate description of USA Article II process with Senate Judiciary Committee role; no factual errors on constitutional provisions	Correct broad timeline but muddled case details; basic USA process known but lacks specifics; minor errors in years or constitutional articles	Confuses First/Second/Third Judges Cases; incorrect NJAC outcome; fundamental misunderstanding of USA appointment process; conflates with impeachment
Structure & flow	20%	3	Logical progression: evolution paragraph → Indian system pros/cons → USA system pros/cons → integrated comparison; smooth transitions between sections; word economy within 250 limit	Recognizable structure but uneven weightage; abrupt shifts between India and USA; some repetition or digression; conclusion merely summarizes	Disorganized or lopsided structure; excessive space on evolution leaving no room for comparison; no clear demarcation between advantages and disadvantages
Examples / case-law / data	20%	3	Cites specific controversies: Justice Karnan episode, elevation of Justice Chandrachud (CJI) process, USA examples like Bork rejection 1987 or recent contentious confirmations; mentions 2015 NJAC 4:1 majority	General references to 'recent controversies' without specifics; mentions NJAC but not verdict details; USA examples generic or absent	No concrete examples; purely theoretical treatment; no case law, no contemporary instances, no names of CJIs or Justices involved
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	3	Offers nuanced synthesis: acknowledges neither system perfect; suggests reforms like collegium transparency (memorandum of procedure) without NJAC-style executive intrusion; balances independence-accountability tension	Safe balanced conclusion without original insight; mere restatement of points; or one-sided advocacy for/against collegium without comparative learning	No conclusion or abrupt ending; purely descriptive final paragraph; extreme position (complete collegium abolition or uncritical defense) without justification

Practice this exact question

Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.

Evaluate my answer →